You can't do That with medium format

[Rob C]

I feel like sending some heart-felt greetings to the exclusive, MFDB-owning members of this commercial photographers' section of the forum.

May peace be with you, and may you satisfy many clients.

Pic reminds me of the line: he's never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but he's sure woken up with a few. Obviusly, could be worse.

(Credit due: Suzie Quatro, 20th November, 2000. BBC 2.)

Amazing the cultural benefit of the dear old Beeb! Love it.

Rob C

[Ray]

Pic reminds me of the line: he's never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but he's sure woken up with a few. Obviusly, could be worse.

(Credit due: Suzie Quatro, 20th November, 2000. BBC 2.)

Amazing the cultural benefit of the dear old Beeb! Love it.

Rob C

You're being very cryptic, Rob. Are you implying I was verey draank when I posted that image? 

[Rob C]

You're being very cryptic, Rob. Are you implying I was verey draank when I posted that image?  

Why, are you pretending to be Dutch?

Rob C

[Ray]

Why, are you pretending to be Dutch?

Rob C

We seem to be straying off the topic of the thread.

I'll add that 35mm shooters can also get backgrounds out of focus. This guy is far worse than any troll  .

[Ray]

Safari on my ipad only permits 9 web pages open at a time, very precious space for instant access. This forum is getting the X for a while. Daily checking here has ceased to be useful. So weekly or even less frequent checking seems to be better use of my iPad web grid.

Ray, I'm not a religious person but what I do realize in life is that scientific approaches to life's exporations is not the full solution either. There exists a space in between where gut instinct is quite powerful along with some faith (which can exist without pure religion). With that, photography becomes more rewarding. The decision of an f-stop is but a blink of an eye and little contemplation is required for such. Spend more time with the content in front of you than worrying about switches, buttons, settings, MTFs. Absorb more of your world travels within your own photography. Not just photographing what is in front of you, but finding the harder, more difficult to attain content, more than a snap. Our world will reach a point of more cameras than humans, so the great intangible is paramount to imagery. That's the path, the goal, the journey, the means and the end. The best way towards that is actually taking no camera at all. That creates more powerful vision because you are left with just what is inside your mind, not handed to you a few feet away.

My intention is not to criticize, but critique. I find your images need more depth of purpose, intention, less worry about depth of field. Travel snaps are fine, but we all can do that a mile away or 10,000 miles away.

Great design, architecture, paintings, fashion, vignettes of nature and so much more connects at a soul balancing level. That's even before the shutter is clicked. I find the walking binaries in this forum and many other forums to be missing that understanding. They seem to think that a set of proceedures are the path, but the truth is far from that.

X  

Your post sounds rather spiritual and profound, but I find it ignores the facts.

First, you cannot take snaps from a mile away, and certainly not 10,000 miles away.

Second, not taking a camera with one does not create a more powerful vision in my experience. The camera records what the memory can not retain.

There are periods in my life when I didn't have a camera, and other periods when I did.

I regret not having a camera during those periods, such as the time I spent in Iran in 1962.

The photo I posted above is one I'd forgotten I'd taken. Whilst organising some images, I came across it and posted it in response to Rob's post, as a bit of humour. It wasn't intended to be spiritually profound.

The main purpose of all my photos is that they should be meaningful to me. A secondary purpose is that they might be meaningful to you.

I should add, John, that of course you can take a snapshot of a subject 10,000 miles away, but you wouldn't capture much of it unless you paid a bit of attention to equipment and technique.

The snake, by the way, was taken with a 105mm lens on a 5D at F4.

[Rob C]

We seem to be straying off the topic of the thread.

I'll add that 35mm shooters can also get backgrounds out of focus. This guy is far worse than any troll  .

Aha! the fabled hamadryad.

Should have posted in the 'nature' part of the forum; they are serious people there.

Rob C

[Ray]

Aha! the fabled hamadryad.

Should have posted in the 'nature' part of the forum; they are serious people there.

Rob C

What has this cobra got to do with trees? You're being cryptic again.

[Rob C]

What has this cobra got to do with trees? You're being cryptic again.

Okay, you're being intentionally naïve to match my crypt!

Serpent, temptation, trees, hand-in-hand, would you bel-Eve it... non? (That was moi being italically and linguistically pretentious at the end.)

;-(

Rob C

[Rob C]

Ray, I was just thinking: this MF phenomenon can be quite productive after all, as a quick look at the territory this thread as covered will quickly reveal.

We have travelled from the Himalayas to Paradise (or at least the Garden of Eden, which may or may not also be the Garden of Good and Evil, at midnight or at other times), with most stops in between.

Quite a cool format for armchair travellers.

Rob C

[eronald]

I think you touched the center point: cyberExperts.

that's why they tend to bark very loud, like the very little nervous dog barks always loud when a big german pastor is crossing it's way...

are we talking about a shepherd of men, or a sheep of a dog?

Edmund

[Rob C]

are we talking about a shepherd of men, or a sheep of a dog?

Edmund

Just an alsation...

Rob C

[Jack Flesher]

They are generally jalous of MFD owners (because hey, they might understand something that they don't or can't access to)  that's why they tend to bark very loud, like the very little nervous dog barks always loud

I think you may have hit on the true "center point" with that comment   

[bjanes]

Just an alsation...

Rob C

Alsatian = Deutscher Schäferhund = German Shepherd. 

[Ray]

I think you touched the center point: cyberExperts.

Internet has given us an incredible tool but became also the very best land for "self-promotional-knowledge-and-pride". Everyone has something to say, to write, to show. Everyone needs to be an "expert" to some extend to feel being someone. This is a WW social phenomenon. It doesn't matter if the datas are serious, it just has to look like.
I mean, there are people in youtube that make movies about what will happen to the world the 21th december 2012! And they are serious about it... like if it they had secret information. It probably makes them feel that they belong to a sort of knowledgable circle. Then videos on evil illuminati and free massons leading the world with super trustable datas of course etc...we are inundated by those "experts".

Photography, being a much more democratized medium than cinema wich requires heavy and expensive structures, so kept free of "cyberexperts", is a diamond mine indeed. Because it has all the ingredients for those cyberExperts to express themselves: it's technical but it's not rocket engineering, it has brands and systems wich every "expert" can identify himself with and compeat with the others etc...

So any average "technician" that would have no voice in real science can elaborate theories from things like DXO etc...and it works! more exactly it looks that it works. Internet is absolutly overcrowded by "knowledgable" people mostly in mass product area, like photography.
Strangely, none of those experts are actually engineers currently working for Dalsa or Canon but consummers like you and me. And very few of those "experts" are actually working as professional photographers, or print bigger than 30cm... So inevitably, the information sprayed it's mostly empty, but they will do all they can to make you feel that they know, matter of cyber reputation they put their names on... having the last word is convenient: "I know and you're wrong because this that and the other". They are generally jalous of MFD owners (because hey, they might understand something that they don't or can't access to)  that's why they tend to bark very loud, like the very little nervous dog barks always loud when a big german pastor is crossing it's way...

You have some good points there, Fred, and I imagine that, for anyone who is not particularly rational and who might have some difficulty in being objective and unbiased, this state of affairs you describe could be a real problem. Whom to trust?

I imagine such people will simply 'follow the leader' and buy the same equipment that someone whom they admire uses. Problem solved.

Others, such as myself, get a sense of what equipment they need through the feed-back process of taking many images in a variety of circumstances and seeing clearly what works (technically) and what's lacking, whether it be too little detail for a large print, too noisy because of poor high-ISO performance, or too blurred due to a too-slow shutter speed which is related to ISO performance.

For my own purposes, I value good performance at high ISO, as well as good performance at base ISO, because I tend to be a peripatetic photographer rather than a studio worker.

For example, when I got up this morning, on the way from the bedroom to the bathroom to have a pee I noticed the following scene through the laundry glass door.

I grabbed my Canon 50D and quickly attached the 100-400 zoom, and took a series of shots through the glass door, setting the camera at ISO 800. The shutter speed was a bit slow, so I re-set the ISO to 1600 which is the highest ISO that provides reasonable quality on this small-format camera.

Knowing the technical qualities that I desire in a camera (and lenses), I can then search the internet for any tests and comparisons that are available, to help me decide upon the best equipment for my purposes.

This is where sites such as DXOmark, Imaging Resource and dpreview are very useful.

Opinions are cheap. Anyone can have an opinion, but not everyone can back up his opinion with comparison images, or comparison data in the form of graphs.

I find it quite absurd that many owners of DBs claim that DXOmark results are a joke, yet such people never provide any comparison images demonstrating that the DXO data is either false or misleading. Can you believe such people? I don't.

So my advice to you, Fred, is to tackle this confusing mass of opinions on the internet with a very simple procedure. Ask for the evidence. In photography, seeing is believing.

[fredjeang]

Ray, I know that the DOXers don't like my statements because I give them hard time always claimed clearly and sometimes with disrespect that I don't give credit to their numbers and will never do.
I went to their site, I think I almost saw their entire measurements, and after examinating with the most open mind the only question that came to my mind was...so what?
Do you really think that I would choose a gear for a one point more or less DR? Measurements by the way taken under laboratory conditions.

I just want to point here that in the past, Michael Reichmann himself started to use the DXO, then made a step back (for a good reason) and explained why.
But no, some bought the DXO pill, beleive in their numbers like religion and use those arguments that they don't hesitate to qualify "scientific" to criticize every gear that they consider "out of their parameters" and to reassure themselves that they made the right technical choices and that there is only one gear in the world above all other equipment that is called the Nikon D3x because DXO gave it the best DR ever measured.

Also, If I'm skilled and experienced, if I make some trully good images and I have the money for it or my professional needs really ask for it, the fact that I want the best equipment makes all sense. What I find funny really is all those "aficionados" that are completly obsessed by the very best and shoot sunsets. It's like if I play a little bit the guitar and I want the Who's set...

Let me tell you something that will not please at all but: I strongly beleive, including myself in the list, that 90% of the people in this forum and 99% in the other forums should start to make brillant pictures with a point-and-shot camera or a film view camera before coming into the scene with gear mystic datas and revendications. Then we can talk.

Maybe, instead of keep going saying that those MF users are all snob and stupids, we could just look at Michael Reichmann who owns: The highest Phase gear + 35mm FF Sony (by the way not the D3 that I know) + some micro4/3 + probably more bizarre stuff like view cameras etc...
I don't think that Michael is a lot preocupated by DXO datas but much more by having the best equipment for this or that particular purpose. Probably more interested in the handling and ergonomics and design than any other parameter.

In fact, Michael shoot on anything. It just has to feel right in each particular hand and needs. IMO.

[Guy Mancuso]

Ray, I know that the DOXers don't like my statements because I give them hard time always claimed clearly and sometimes with disrespect that I don't give credit to their numbers and will never do.
I went to their site, I think I almost saw their entire measurements, and after examinating with the most open mind the only question that came to my mind was...so what?
Do you really think that I would choose a gear for a one point more or less DR? Measurements by the way taken under laboratory conditions.

I just want to point here that in the past, Michael Reichmann himself started to use the DXO, then made a step back (for a good reason) and explained why.
But no, some bought the DXO pill, beleive in their numbers like religion and use those arguments that they don't hesitate to qualify "scientific" to criticize every gear that they consider "out of their parameters" and to reassure themselves that they made the right technical choices and that there is only one gear in the world above all other equipment that is called the Nikon D3x because DXO gave it the best DR ever measured.

Also, If I'm skilled and experienced, if I make some trully good images and I have the money for it or my professional needs really ask for it, the fact that I want the best equipment makes all sense. What I find funny really is all those "aficionados" that are completly obsessed by the very best and shoot sunsets. It's like if I play a little bit the guitar and I want the Who's set...

Let me tell you something that will not please at all but: I strongly beleive, including myself in the list, that 90% of the people in this forum and 99% in the other forums should start to make brillant pictures with a point-and-shot camera or a film view camera before coming into the scene with gear mystic datas and revendications. Then we can talk.

Maybe, instead of keep going saying that those MF users are all snob and stupids, we could just look at Michael Reichmann who owns: The highest Phase gear + 35mm FF Sony (by the way not the D3 that I know) + some micro4/3 + probably more bizarre stuff like view cameras etc...
I don't think that Michael is a lot preocupated by DXO datas but much more by having the best equipment for this or that particular purpose. Probably more interested in the handling and ergonomics and design than any other parameter.

To me DXO does not take into account for the raw converter and as a Phase shooter with now on my 4th back plus many tests. There is a major improvement just bringing the files from any Phase back into C1. It has all the built in algorithms for noise , DR built into the software. As a shooter and not a scientist i only care about one thing how it comes out AFTER i process the files not some raw data that really means absolutely nothing. I consider DXO as a guide and only a guide does not mean it is right or wrong just not complete. Only thing that matters is what the Tiff file looks like after you process and either deliver to client or go to print. I know that may rub so many the wrong way but digital photography is what it is at the end of the processing chain. Is this not what matters the most. Not to piss off the DXO folks but why would we really care what happens on the front end of the raws, makes no sense to me. Especially since most of the OEM MF if not all are making corrections in there software for each dedicated back they sell.

[fredjeang]

To me DXO does not take into account for the raw converter and as a Phase shooter with now on my 4th back plus many tests. There is a major improvement just bringing the files from any Phase back into C1. It has all the built in algorithms for noise , DR built into the software. As a shooter and not a scientist i only care about one thing how it comes out AFTER i process the files not some raw data that really means absolutely nothing. I consider DXO as a guide and only a guide does not mean it is right or wrong just not complete. Only thing that matters is what the Tiff file looks like after you process and either deliver to client or go to print. I know that may rub so many the wrong way but digital photography is what it is at the end of the processing chain. Is this not what matters the most. Not to piss off the DXO folks but why would we really care what happens on the front end of the raws, makes no sense to me.

Exactly. And we all know that they have (commercial strategy) a special sauce for their files. That is why Phase has never been very friendly with the DNG as I experienced myself.
So the point is that all those DXO datas are just datas out of contexts, and contexts are so diverse really.

[Ray]

Ray, I know that the DOXers don't like my statements because I give them hard time always claimed clearly and sometimes with disrespect that I don't give credit to their numbers and will never do.
I went to their site, I think I almost saw their entire measurements, and after examinating with the most open mind the only question that came to my mind was...so what?
Do you really think that I would choose a gear for a one point more or less DR? Measurements by the way taken under laboratory conditions.

No. You've got it the wrong way round, Fred. You don't choose gear because it has a one point more or less DR. But you may choose not to buy some gear because it has only a one point more or less DR, if that camera has advertised itself has having significantly more DR than certain other smaller formats. This is what seems to infuriate the MFDB crowd.

But no, some bought the DXO pill, beleive in their numbers like religion and use those arguments that they don't hesitate to qualify "scientific" to criticize every gear that they consider "out of their parameters" and to reassure themselves that they made the right technical choices and that there is only one gear in the world above all other equipment that is called the Nikon D3x because DXO gave it the best DR ever measured.

Wrong again. DXO is not a pill or a religion. I'm sure the team at DXO labs would be delighted if anyone were to send them evidence (real evidence) that contradicts their results.

There have been many occasions when I have tested and compared my own equipment, before DXOmark was created. Such results in retrospect, agree very closely with DXOmark's results.
When the Nikon D3 was released and all reports on the internet claimed that this camera had up to 2 stops better high-ISO performance than any 35mm DSLR in existence, I was very interested but also incredulous.

I took the trouble to compare the D3 with my Canon 5D whilst in Bangkok. I couldn't hire one because they were in such short supply, so I visited the main Nikon store in Bangkok and used their demonstration model.

After examining many shots, the result was clear. The D3 did have a high-ISO advantage over the 5D, but only by about 2/3rds of a stop, which is nowhere near the claimed 2 stops.


Years later, after DXOmark appeared, I found that their comparison between the Nikon D3 and Canon 5D also indicate approximately a 2/3rds of a stop difference in DR and noise at high ISO. However, their tests are far more comprehensive than mine. They also reveal a more significant improvement at lower ISOs, which I didn't test because of time constraints.

This notion that DXO's test results are a belief system is sheer nonsense, Fred. The strength of religions is that they cannot be proved either true or false.

This is not true of DXO. If you have evidence that you think may falsify their results, then provide it. We'll all be happy, including me.

Let me tell you something that will not please at all but: I strongly beleive, including myself in the list, that 90% of the people in this forum and 99% in the other forums should start to make brillant pictures with a point-and-shot camera or a film view camera before coming into the scene with gear mystic datas and revendications. Then we can talk.

They do make brilliant pictures, but not by your standard. Surely you realise that what's valued in 'art' is a very subjective process and that there's a lot of humbug and patronage going on.

If everyone made brilliant pictures according to your standards (which you've no doubt borrowed from others as we all do), then such pictures would soon become a cliche, boring and banal.

[Rob C]

They do make brilliant pictures, but not by your standard. Surely you realise that what's valued in 'art' is a very subjective process and that there's a lot of humbug and patronage going on.

If everyone made brilliant pictures according to your standards (which you've no doubt borrowed from others as we all do), then such pictures would soon become a cliche, boring and banal.

My italics.

But Ray, most pics of any style or genre already reach the heady heights you just described.

You can't win: it's all been done before, and much better.

The most one can hope for is to please one's self, the inner person. That's the real benefit of the amateur status.

Rob C

[Rob C]

I was with Testino (he impressed me really as a person) and others on his Madrid's opening, he would shoot with anything. The great Ruven Afanador uses several systems etc...do you really think this class of photographers are giving just 5minutes of their time to those internet measurements? They use cameras, what's available, point. And because they use cameras, point, they use use them to this level.

Fred, it was pretty much always like this prior to the invention of digital. Everybody who could afford it used the same small handful of cameras and films. The companies thrived, the photographers thrived and all the world was a happier place. Digital not only changed the mindset of the users but killed off many of the companies that made the goodies that allowed it all to work so smoothly.

I can promise you, discussions such as happen here never, ever, occurred amongst professional users of photo equipment - only the amateur magazines played those games: they had to; it was their reason for existing, followed by the publication of reader's wives pictures in second place. The pro mags I found - few and far between - were concerned with lens and new film tests more than anything else. New cameras were rare birds!

Rob C